Camera Raw 6.7 does include support for the Fuji X-S1. I downloaded the candidate release this evening and my raw files were recognised by the DNG converter and I was able to develop them and save as .PSD. Perhaps if you try that route you may have success.

Eric said that the new sensor was going to take a bit longer to support and by that I understood him to mean it WOULD be supported. But Adobe usually doesn't telegraph expected ship dates. Just the standard 4-5 times a year update cycle...

Your situation is not unique, and you are not the first person with this complaint. Nor will you be the last as long as camera companies continue to insist on their own proprietary raw file format. Adobe has to create profiles for every new camera that shoots raw images. It's not just the format, it's the individual model. Camera Raw looks at the camera model and then provides one or more profiles for that model. Adobe cannot support a model that hasn't existed, and must be allowed sufficient time to provide raw support for that camera. That is one of the reasons why ACR is updated approximately four times each year. However, ACR is only updated for the currently shipping versions of Photoshop and Photoshop Elements. If you don't have the current version then you can use the latest version of the free standalone DNG converter to create DNG (digital negative) copies of your files. These will contain all of the raw image data, and will provide you with all of raw editing capability that your version of ACR has. You just won't be able to see it or use any new features that have been added.

Does anyone know if raw support will be released with the shipping version of ACR7? Is there is a problem getting info from Fuji? It seems there are a lot posts on various forums saying that the lack of support is due to Fuji not cooperating. I know Mr. Chan and crew are working on it, just hope it is a solvable issue in the near future, rather than later. But just being impatient.....

Apparently, you haven't caught the idea. It has been explained over and over again. Adobe has to profile EVERY new camera that shoots raw images. The camera companies are not concerned about Adobe or Camera Raw. Camera raw is released approximately four times a year. New cameras are the main feature in each new release. Your camera will be added when it is ready. And demanding because there is " high consumer interest" isn't going to make any difference. Anyone who has one of those new cameras is convinced that his camera should be highest priority. You're just going to have to wait. Your camera will eventually have support. But there's nothing you can do to speed up the process and nobody knows when the next release will be or what new cameras will be included. You can call it being left in the dark if you want. But that's just been the Adobe policy for years, and you can't change it.

My issues are not with Adobe, or with Fuji exclusively. My issues are with them together. If Silkypix is able to handle the Fuji RAW format, then it is conceivable that Adobe would also be able to develop a process to deal with the format. Something must be going on behind the scenes between hardware and software manufacturers that prevents some 3rd party companies (IE Adobe) from having the capability to deal with RAW formats before the release of new hardware, while others (Silkypix) can. Fuji must have hand picked Silkypix to to "the one" to handle the camer's RAW format. This begs the question "Why isn't the industry leader in image production software picked to handle the RAW format work for the industry leader for point-and-click?"

Fuji and Adobe can take their excuses back from my email inbox as to why I should understand why the issue belong to the other. The bottom line is that Adobe SHOULD have been "the one" to handle the RAW format of this awesome camera. It's not Adobe's fault to exclusively bare... nor Fuji's... it's on them both. The consumer deserves better. Something is wrong in the world of B2B when the best in software imaging is not playing well with the best in hardware.

Actually Jim I am quite aware of the process and what it takes, and I have most certainly have an idea of what is going on, since you feel the need to police the forum. However since the release of CS6 has most likely been finalized there was a possibility of it being included in this upcoming release, which is what I asked. I did not ask them to change priority, and I am well aware of Adobe's policies.

Eli I agree it is shame there is not more cooperation which is why I asked the question, as to where the bottle neck is, I do know they will eventually get the support in there but if the manufacturer is not provding support than that is an issue that consumers can deal with by putting pressure on the manufacturer.

You raise a very good point: it is a very good idea to let vendors know directly how important Adobe raw support is to you.

We have had a few recent examples (with other vendors) where customers repeatedly and directly let camera vendors know how important Camera Raw and Lightroom support is to them. This resulted in a very positive outcome for the vendors, Adobe, and the end users (a rare win-win-win situation!): namely, high-quality raw support available in both ACR and Lightroom from the very first day the vendors' new camera models were released to the public.

As a customer of a new camera model waiting for support from ACR and Lightroom, this is perhaps the single most important step you can take.

ISL, like it (SilkyPix) or not, supplies either SilkyPix or its code (current or legacy) to a number of camera manufacturers to use as OEM/in OEM raw converters... for example for Panasonic, Pentax, Samsung, Fuji itself... so it is kind of natural thing that ISL has the information from Fuji...

My issues are not with Adobe, or with Fuji exclusively. My issues are with them together. If Silkypix is able to handle the Fuji RAW format, then it is conceivable that Adobe would also be able to develop a process to deal with the format. Something must be going on behind the scenes between hardware and software manufacturers that prevents some 3rd party companies (IE Adobe) from having the capability to deal with RAW formats before the release of new hardware, while others (Silkypix) can. Fuji must have hand picked Silkypix to to "the one" to handle the camer's RAW format. This begs the question "Why isn't the industry leader in image production software picked to handle the RAW format work for the industry leader for point-and-click?"

But ACR and Lightroom DO support the RAF file format that Fuji produces. If you look at the list of supported cameras in the accompanying help file on the Adobe website you will see that there are a number of Fuji cameras that are supported. It isn't just the RAF format; it's the individual camera models. And the model we have been talking about in this thread is so new that there hasn't been enough time to profile that specific camera model. ACR and Lightroom need to know that information, and a profile needs to be created for that model or they cannot know what to provide. Again, support is provided on a MODEL basis, not just a file format.

I understand your point of view; Adobe is on board for the Fuji RAF format, and it is only a matter of time before they figure out how to decode the particulars of this new sensor.

My feeling about this, however, is that Fuji should have been cooperating with Adobe LONG ago on this particular camera - Fuji should have been actively providing Adobe and other software manufacturers with the specifications of the sensor that were required for their software engineers to build a decoder - all for the purpose of having the release of the camera, and the release of the software that supports the camera, to coincide.

It's a little off topic, but we can take an example from the Ford Motor Company. Shortly before the release of their Ford Focus car, Ford apparently released to the aftermarket producers the specifications for several parts of the car. Practically at the same time as the release of the car, car owners could buy exhausts, mapping computers, handles, spoilers, lights, dash conversions, body kits etc from aftermarket producers. The availability of customization at release boosted sales to the younger crowd - "Win Win".

OK, we understand each other. But we are beating a dead horse here. SOME camera manufacturers are cooperating and are providing information to Adobe in advance. But some companies aren't doing that, and I don't know which ones are which. It's not a matter of Adobe "figuring out" how to support this camera. They already know, the process is in place. But Adobe has to acquire the camera, take the test shots required, then go through the normal process of creating the profile. The reason some cameras seem to get preferential treatment and faster support is "probably" because the manufacturer notified Adobe. Eric Chan of Adobe has stated that one of the best things we can do is contact the camera makers and tell them how important ACR/Lightroom support is, and urge them to act accordingly.